Sociology Ph.D Program

The Collection of Theses of the Ph.D Dissertation

János Bocz

The Structural Changes of the Non-profit Sector in Hungary The Hungarian Non-profit Sector from the early 90’s to the mid of 2000

Supervisor: Dr. László Letenyei

Dr. Ferenc Moksony (methodology)

Budapest, 2009

The Collection of Theses of the Ph.D Dissertation

János Bocz

The Structural Changes of the Non-profit Sector in Hungary The Hungarian Non-profit Sector from the early 90’s to the mid of 2000

Supervisor: Dr. László Letenyei

Dr. Ferenc Moksony (methodology)

© János Bocz

2

Table of contents

I. The Reasons for Choosing the Subject. Preliminary Researches ........................................... 4 

II. The Methods Used ............................................................................................................... 10 

III. The Main Scientific Conclusions and Findings of the Dissertations ................................. 12 

IV. References .......................................................................................................................... 23 

V. Publications ......................................................................................................................... 39 

3

I. The Reasons for Choosing the Subject. Preliminary Researches

The subject of this dissertation is the non-profit sector. This is a sector for which there is

no agreement in Hungarian or foreign scientific circles as to its place in social and

economic fields. This study describes a group of organizations to which there are many

different attitudes and mistaken beliefs both in society and the scientific world. Because of

this one of the aims of this dissertation is to clarify which organizations belong to this

sector and what processes characterized the spreading and functioning of this non-market

system of organizations in Hungary in the last decade.

Despite the lack of consensus concerning such organizations and their role in society,

because of the role they play in social integration and their growing economic significance

there has been a growing interest in their activity from both Hungarian and foreign

researchers. The reasons for this are increasing individuality, the growing importance of

social networks, the growing activity of non-profit organizations (NPO’s) in an

increasingly globalised world, disappointment with political parties, the reassessment of

ideas about the system of institutions that had originally two sectors (state-private) and

rethinking the role of the state. A further reason is the recognition that civil and non-profit

organizations working instead of or with the state and market sectors might get a more and

more significant role in representing different social groups and solving their social needs.

Why is it important to study NPO’s?

Both the social and economic significance of civil and non-profit organizations merit a

thorough analysis of the sector. The civil organizations of the sector (associations and

private foundations) make the self-organization of society possible, provide social space

for the communal activities of citizens and by increasing trust between people might help

the realisation of the idea of social cohesion. These organizations are also interactional

spaces for relations between people and social institutions and in this way they serve to

represent norms, values, culture and interests. Thus we can look at NPO’s as social entities

that are linked to social capital and social integration. They can be the standards,

embodiment and representation of social capital at the same time.

In the research of Robert D. Putnam one of the standards of social capital was the number

of members of civil and non-profit organizations, in his research the author measured civil

commitment by the participation in local organizations and societies and the changes of

4

time spent there (Putnam, 1995). However, civil and non-profit organizations can be the

medium and representatives of social capital. Already Pierre Bourdieu recognised the fact

that social capital can be counted on as a resource, and that it is possible to convert the

different types of capital into each other (Bourdieu, 1997). To be on the board of trustees

of a foundation or to take part in the activities of a well-known society is not only a factor

that increases the participants’ prestige and social capital, but also makes it possible to

express the different types of capital and their conversions.

Looking at them in a broader sense, civil and non-profit organizations can be seen to be

one of the most important institutions of social integration and and a mediating influence

for system-integrating mechanisms. When discussing the crisis of welfare states, the

decreasing role of the family and the challenges of globalization and ecological

deterioration, Anthony Giddens suggests following a ’third way’, one of the basic

conditions of which would be the partnership of the state and civil society, and the

integration of the third (non-profit) sector into the renewal of society (Giddens, 1984,

1998). The basis of cooperation between the state and civil society is trust, which plays an

important part in the welfare of states and their ability to compete. According to Francis

Fukuyama in every society all successful economic communities are held together by

trust, which demonstrates its integrating effect through civil activity. As the author writes:

’the vitality of liberal political and economic institutions depends on the health and

dynamism of civil societies’ (Fukuyama, 1997). It is not a coincidence that different

international institutions (e.g. the UN, the EU and the World Bank) more and more often

refer to the social role of civil and non-profit organizations, and what is more, the most

recent approaches concerning the activity of non-governmental organizations analyze the

influences of the formation of global civil society (Anheier-Glasius-Kaldor, 2004).

The potential of the civil, non-profit sector cannot be underestimated when discussing the

ownership of economic resources and the fulfilment of social requirements. Although the

results of several surveys on the role of NPO’s in certain countries – especially developed

ones – are well-known, so far there has been only one comprehensive international

empiric comparative survey,1 which was organised by the Johns Hopkins University

Institute for Policy Studies. The main reason for this is the range of interpretations of the

concept of non-profit organizations within every country: because of the different cultural

1 In the research started in 1990 the role, size, structure and finances of the non-profit sector were analyzed first in 12, then in 22 countries. The countries taking part in the

research were: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, the Czech Republic, the United States, Great-Britain, Finland, France, Holland, Izrael, Ireland, Japan, Columbia,

Hungary, Mexico, Germany, Spain, Slovakia, Peru and Romania.

5

and historical traditions between each country there is no universal agreement concerning

which organizations belong to this sector and the position of NPO’s compared to the

market and state sectors. Although, now, more than a decade has passed since the Johns

Hopkins survey was started, it is still worth mentioning some of its results from 1995 in

this essay.

For all the countries taking part in the survey, the non-profit sector accounted for 1.1

thousand billion dollars and the expenditure of this sector on average amounted to 5% of

the GDP. The NPO’s employed almost 19 million paid full-time staff, in the countries

being examined on average 28% of the population undertook voluntary work for NPO’s.

Also in western countries NPO’s played an important role in job creation. Between 1990

and 1995 the number of people employed by NPO’s on average grew by 24%, and this

created new jobs in the fields of health care, social care and education (Salamon-Anheier-

List-Toepler-Sokolowski, 1999).

The Hungarian figures also show the development of this sector and the strengthening of

its economic importance. Since 1990, also in Hungary the number of civil and non-profit

organizations has increased fourfold, the sector’s income grew from 240 to 896 billion Ft

between 1996 and 2006. According to the latest data of 2006 the number of employees in

the sector had reached 100 thousand, statements from the organizations indicated that staff

levels had reached 3,8 million along with 438 thousand people who contributed voluntary

work to help them achieve their goals. In order to illustrate the amount of the resources

concentrated in the sector it can be said that in 2006 the amount of the resources of the

non-profit sector was equivalent to the combined income of the state budget derived from

inland revenue tax and simplified entrepreneurial tax.

We should not question the economic potential of the organizations, which were called

’social’ before 1990 but are now called ’civil’ or ’non-profit’ organizations; at the same

time we can also see that information about them is often misinterpreted. One of the main

reasons for this is the fact that their aims are incorrectly presented, and another is that their

aims are often seen as just a collection of homogeneous organizations.2 People thand to

generalize when forming opinions about these groups by looking at their appearances and

even scandals, ignoring the fact that the structure, aim and function of each organization

are generally different.

2 A typical example of this is when civil and non-profit organizations are used as each other’s synonyms, or when referring to NPO’s, they mean only foundations and

voluntary associations, ignoring the fact that the greatest part of the sector’s incomes and employees are concentrated in the public benefit companies, which are few in

number but whose economic potential is significant.

6

In this dissertation my starting point is the assumption that over the last two decades the

Hungarian civil and non-profit sectors have changed significantly. This has been shown

not only by the changes in the structure of organization and activity, but also by the fact

that because of the growing concentration of financial and human resources the

organizations themselves, previously diverse, have now become increasingly so. Thus the

variations in their aims and financial resources have become greater due to the differing

structure and access to resources of each separate organization.

Foreign and Hungarian research of the subject

On the basis of foreign, especially Anglo-Saxon and German theories of social science,

the development of NPO’s is due to both economic and sociological factors. The former

theories explain the development of the non-profit sector and the differences within

various countries as caused by the shortage of available public goods (Weisbrod, 1977,

1986), the greater trust in NPO’s (Hansmann, 1987), the heterogeneity of demands (James,

1987). In sociological approaches stress has been placed on the prevailing social and

historical factors, resistance to the power structure, changes in ways of life and social

structures and meeting the demands of different groups of stakeholders. According to

these approaches the development and function of NPO’s can be explained by protests

against the prevailing power structures (Smelser, 1963; Tilly, 1978), the overloading of

the state (Etzioni-Halevy, 1983), the continuous adaption to the environment (Touraine,

1981), changes in ways of life, the intention to influence social and political decisions and

achieving results benefiting particular groups of stakeholders (Krashinsky, 1997). On the

basis of interdisciplinary approaches, the differences between NPO’s and the development

and social function of the sector can be explained by the different cultural and economic

development of the various countries (Salamon-Anheier, 1998), the NPO’s role of

mediating interests in the welfare states (Evers, 1988; Evers and Olk, 1996) and the ideas

of evolutionary theories concerning ’organized diversity’ (Grabher and Stark, 1996).

In Hungary, however, foreign theories cannot always be applied. Before 1989 the

functioning of the greater part of organizations, considered now to be NPO’s, was

hindered by the laws of the time, the one-party system and the prevailing power structure.

Exceptions to this were the politically neutral organizations (e.g. sports clubs) and

organizations founded and influenced by the state (e.g. the People’s National Front and the

trade union movement). Thus the development of Hungarian NPO’s and the circumstances

of their formation from the late 1980’s differed greatly from those of democratic countries.

7

Besides satisfying increasing demands and acquiring extra support resources, in the

development of the sector an important role was played by the change of the political

system, the survival of the major part of earlier social organizations and the change in the

structure of economy and ownership.

It might be a Hungarian characteristic, which also played an important role in the growth

and structural changes of the sector, that on the one hand, state and municipal institutions

lacking funds, increased their economic possibilities by creating NPO’s; on the other hand,

amongst the many types of NPO’s founded after 1994, it was the public benefit

companies, which due to their non-profit characteristics and the benefits and supports

linked to them that were able to gain advantages in the market over the state and for-profit

economic organizations. The formation of the Hungarian non-profit sector was effected by

the far- reaching changes in world politics and economics together with the arising of a

global civil society. Because of this Hungarian policy-makers – even if only symbolically

– pay more and more attention to the arbitration of their interests with civil organizations

and the communication with social agencies. Last but not least, the formation and growth

of the Hungarian non-profit sector was significantly effected by the prevailing

governmental policy, which through the regulation of legal and fiscal conditions effected

both directly and indirectly the development of the whole non-profit sector and the

operational conditions of particular organizations.

In Hungary researches into NPO’s started relatively early, in the late 80’s, and in this the

Non-profit Research Group played a pioneering role, which as a professional workshop

for non-profit researches drew attention to the social and economic significance of such

organizations. In the last 18 years several comprehensive studies and essays have been

published on the sector, and more and more information has been published about the

functioning of NPO’s. One part of these researches focused on a general introduction of

the sector and the description of foreign theories (Kuti-Marschall, 1991; Bartal, 1999),

while another part attempted to create the Hungarian model of non-profit organizations

(Hegyesi, 1991; Lévai-Széman, 1993; Fülöp, 2002; Bullain, 2005). Works of synthesis

analysed the sector’s developmental tendencies and legal and economic environment

(Vajda, 1995, 1997; Kuti, 1998; Bartal, 2005; Bíró, 2002), while statistical analyses (Bocz

et al, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006) made the functional and economic data of Hungarian

NPO’s known. Besides the comprehensive studies, several essays have been published

which examined specific fields: the 1% tax-deductible donation scheme (Kuti-Vajda,

1997; Bíró-Gerencsér, 2000), voluntary work (Czakó et al., 1995; Czike-Bartal, 2005;

8

Czike-Kuti 2006), specific fields of non-profit activity (Szalai, 1997; Bocz, 2004),

cooperation between local authorities and NPO’s (Sebestyén, 1996; Harsányi-Széman,

1999; Szabó, 2000) and discussions on Hungarian NPO’s (Glózer, 2006).3

3 It would need a separate chapter to list all foreign and Hungarian research concerning civil society, its meaning and the history of its theories. References to these are to be found under ’Main references’.

9

II. The Methods Used

In the dissertation I have used various methods of analysis and examination. In the first

and second parts of the essay, with the help of foreign and Hungarian technical literature, I

have shown the different interpretations concerning the usage of ideas about civil and non-

profit organizations and the most important theoretical approaches related to the creation

and the social role of NPO’s.

In the third and fourth parts, I used the databases of the Hungarian Central Statistical

Office (HCSO) containing the results of the surveys of data concerning NPO’s and the

income tax report data gathered by the National Civil Fund and the Tax Office.

The HCSO has been annually examining the most important economic indices of

Hungarian NPO’s since the early 90’s. Comprehensive opinion polls carried out by mail

referring to the years from 1993 to 2000 and from 2003 to 20064 included all NPO’s

registered in Hungary. In the data gathering of the HCSO significant changes have

occurred, the subjects of observation, the questions asked in the questionnaires and the

methods of data processing have all been changed. In order to make a comparison I

unified, in several steps, the indices linked to the different years and the databases used in

the dissertation.

The concepts used in this essay are identical with those generally used by the HCSO. The

categorising of the NPO’s on the basis of activity groups was done using the International

Classification of Non-profit Organisations. Based on this, according to their activities are

classified into 18 main groups, 62 minor groups and 192 subgroups.

According to the method of the HCSO5 the statistical indices concerning the whole sector

are estimated on the data-providing organizations. Replacing the non-responding

organizations and grossing up have been recently done by the method of dynamic

imputation. The essential point of this method is that the missing data of the non-

responding organizations, which have the same characteristics as other registered NPO’s,

is replaced by the data of similar NPO’s that have responded (donor organizations). In

order to provide more precise results while processing the data for 2004, some NPO’s that

have since closed down6 were used in the modelling and this influenced the indices for

4 There was representative data collecting concerning the years 2001 and 2002. 5 There are detailed descriptions of it in ’Non-profit Organizations in Hungary, 2004’ and ’Non-profit Organizations in Hungary, 2005’ both published by the HCSO. 6 Previously non-responding organizations, about which there was no usable data (they did not send the questionnaire back, wrong address, already defunct organizations not reported), were automatically given a

10

2004, too. In the table below I comprehensively describe the changes in the data collecting

methods of NPO’s during the period from 1991 to 2005.

Year Description of changes

1991 Beginning of statistical observation of NPO’s. Using data provided by the Tax Office.

1992 Methodological change I. Start of data collecting about NPO’s by the HCSO. Use of a method based on index numbers. Data referring to finances and employment had to be given only by organizations having an income higher than 500 thousand Ft.

1993 Income data had to be declared by all organizations. Data referring to outgoings and employment had to be declared only by organizations having an income higher than 500 thousand Ft.

1995 Outgoings and employment data had to be declared by all organizations. Public law foundations, public benefit companies and public law associations start to be studied. Start of thematic complementary collection of data about particular fields of the sector.

1997 Methodological change II. Replacement of method based on index number by the method of dynamic imputation. Removal of the Voluntary and Mandatory Pension Fund from observation.

1998 Use of two sources of data (OITH, NPREG) in order to define the circle of observation. 2001 Methodological change III. Representative data collecting. Use of specific methods.

2002 Methodological change IV. Representative data collecting. Use of specific methods.

2003 Methodological change V. Reuse of the representative data collecting method. Associations entering the spheres of observation.

2004

Methodological change VI. Further refinement of the method of representative data collecting, developing methods for long term use. Modelling of data of defunct organizations. Integrated use of three sources of data (OITH, GSZR, and NPREG) in the course of defining the spheres of observation.

2005 Methodological change VII. Ending of modelling of defunct organizations, reuse of procedure used in 2003.

The databases used in this essay refer to the years from 1996 to 2000 and from 2003 to

2006, have the required number of cases and contain all the information on which I have

based my hypotheses. In order to carry out the research I unified the variables of the data

bases and created new derived variables. During the process I also analyzed cross- section

data. In my dissertation I applied the simple but efficient method of cross-table analysis.

The analysis is based on proportions and index- type variables. I carried out the analysis of

the databases using the SPSS programme.

donor and were registered as functioning. Before, only those organizations, which had reported their closing down, escaped analysis. In the course of processing data for 2004, during the procedure of finding donors we modelled even the non-responding and defunct organizations, with the result that some of the non-responding organizations (modelled as defunct) consequently evaded analysis. This partially explains the fact that in 2004 there were fewer NPO’s in Hungary than in 2003.

11

III. The Main Scientific Conclusions and Findings of the Dissertations

In the following part I shall summarize the main scientific conclusions and findings, in the

order of the hypotheses that I chose at the beginning of the dissertation.

1. The hypothesis: not every civil organization is an NPO, and not every NPO is a civil

organization

The two groups of organizations are not identical, but NPO’s might have civil

characteristics, just as civil organizations might have some features of an NPO.

While examining the hypothesis, by introducing the development and meaning of the two

concepts, I have tried to prove that using ’civil’ and ’non-profit’ as synonyms hides the

immanent characteristics of the different meanings behind the two concepts. The concept

of civil organizations, when compared to NPO’s, might be considered as both a narrower

and wider category, and though there is some overlapping between the two groups, not

every NPO is a civil organization and not every civil organization is an NPO. There have

been great differences in their ideological backgrounds, the times of their development,

the actual social and economic context either helping, or hindering their formation

(Europe versus the United States, establishing the rights of autonomous citizens versus the

attempt to separate the private and public sectors, the conditions of the formation of the

non-profit sector in democratic and post-communist countries). And in time, as the

meanings behind the concepts (e.g. the concept of civil society in western and eastern

Europe) continue to change, the different interpretations of their original meanings make

their basic differences diminish, so eventually civil and non-profit organizations will be

neither one, nor the other.

Through examining the hypothesis, it can be proved that although the two groups of

organizations are not identical, NPO’S might have civil qualities (e.g. voluntary work,

independence from the government), just as civil organizations might have qualities

characteristic of NPO’s (e.g. institutional functioning without the aim of profit).

2. The hypothesis: the difference in the development of the Hungarian non-profit sector

from that of developed countries

As opposed to foreign theories, the formation and development of the sector in Hungary

was more strongly influenced by factors connected with the changes in the social and

12

economic environment and with the activity of governmental decision makers. These

were, for example, the change of the political structure, the continuing activity of previous

social organizations, the transformation of the structure of economy and ownership, the

under funded state and municipal institutional systems as well as the policy of the

prevailing government regulating the functioning and management of NPO’s.

When examining the hypothesis, introducing and considering the changes in the

Hungarian social and economic environment, I have tried to show that the conditions of

the formation of Hungarian NPO’s and the development of the sector significantly differed

from the practice in democratic countries. In the late 1980’s only 8.5 thousand social

organizations (associations and representative organisations of employers and workers)

were working in Hungary, while by 2006 the sector expanded to 60 thousand

organizations (incorporating 9 organizational types). Such significant increases in numbers

and organizational changes can be explained by several partially linked processes and

factors.

The socio-political framework of the development of the sector was formed by the

changes in the political structure in the late 80’s, early 90’s. While in Hungary, before the

late 80’s only politically neutral associations and state-controlled representative

organizations of employers and workers could function within an official framework, the

new democratic political environment made it possible not only for the previously

informally operating voluntary organizations to be given an official foundation, but also

for those NPO’s which had differing structures (e.g. foundations) and represented new

aims and interests brought about by the transformed social conditions. The transformation

of the political and economic environment played a demonstrably major role in the sharp

growth in the number of NPO’s – especially foundations and representative organizations

of employers and workers – and provided a suitable background for the further

development of the sector.

Alongside the newly founded NPO’s, the past continued to survive. Many previous social

organizations remained, and what is more, many organizations that between 1945-48 had

been shut down, were re-founded. Mostly those, typically urban social organizations

concerned with sporting, leisure and cultural activities, survived, which had a stable

organizational and support basis and were not closely linked to the party-state institutional

system or the large communist companies and collective farms. In the early 90’s the

organizations which were shut down in the greatest numbers were mainly local ones,

belonging to village communities (e.g. sports, fire services), the basic organizations of the

13

big communist state-linked trade unions and political organizations, and which had been

founded before the change of regime, and which had never had mass support.

Finally we must mention a special group of organizations, which were re-established and

continued the aims of their antecedents. In the early 90’s many associations, which had

earlier been banned or shut down – mainly due to the activities of the previous members –

were re-established and tried to continue their pre-1945 activities with more or less

success.

During the first decade of the 90’s the sector’s development was significantly influenced

by the economic environment, and within it, the transformation of the structure of

ownership. The privatization of state property, the change of ownership of Hungarian

companies and the start of property ownership within municipal authorities all affected the

composition of the non-profit sector just being formed. It was shown by the fact that many

social organizations, previously owned by state companies or collective farms (e.g. sports

clubs, political youth organizations, trade unions) were shut down due to the

transformation of the donor institution. However, at the same time, changes in the social

environment helped the formation and development of the new organizational forms. In

the early 90’s the ’old-new’ owners (managers) and employees established new

representative organizations of employers and workers, in accordance with the new

institutional system, while municipal authorities, in order to gain the support of citizens

and businesses and to run local communities, first set up foundations, then from 1994

public law foundations and public benefit companies. In the early 90’s, taking advantage

of the liberal and favourable regulations for donations, private persons and different

institutions established (private) foundations, then after 1994 Parliament and governmental

institutions established public law foundations in order to carry out public works.

Eventually all the agents of economy recognised the possibilities within the non-profit

form, and their ability to adapt themselves to the economic environment changed the

internal structure of the sector significantly in the long term.

Through the example of educational and academic institutions it has been shown that in

accordance with foreign theories, the development of the sector in Hungary was

encouraged by the fact that NPO’s were able to meet unfulfilled demands, or as alternative

providers managed to carry out such institutional services, which in the state-socialist

system were state monopolies. The resulting information drew attention to the fact that the

spread of non-profit providers would be a longer process than expected by many, and that

14

NPO’s could only be competitive in a market where there were fewer rivals as opposed to

state- and municipally-run institutions.

It can be considered as typically Hungarian, that the non-profit organizational form not

only met unfulfilled demands, but also made it possible for under-resourced municipal

institutions to gain more funding and external support. Among the foreign approaches to

the question it is worth mentioning those support theories according to which the main aim

of establishing NPO’s was to gain financial support. These motives also played an

important role in Hungary, but we must also add that here it was promoted by government

institutions managing on under funded budgets, and the growing difference between

normative subsidy and running costs. This latter statement can be proved by empirical data

and is especially valid concerning those medical, social and educational institutions, which

by establishing foundations tried to involve both private citizens and businesses in

financing their institutions. Furthermore, with this income they were able to relax the rigid

rules governing the workings of institutions financed from budgetary money. It is difficult

to estimate the exact number of NPO’s established by under funded institutions, or the

magnitude of the incomes they received, but the minimum number of such organizations

must be 4-5 thousand, and their financial support from the general public and from

companies must have been at least 8.4 billion (!) HUF in 2006.

It is impossible to estimate the exact number of organizations established solely to gain the

advantages derived from the non-profit structure, but it may be safely assumed that some

public benefit companies and foundations were certainly motivated by such aims when

being set up. Such are those NPO’s which were set up mainly to use budgetary support in

both ’targeted and flexible’ ways (e.g. certain public benefit companies established by

state and municipal institutions) or to make it possible for party-political interests and

interest groups linked to the governing parties to receive support for governmental projects

(e.g. certain public law foundations) and to eliminate structural constraints (e.g. reduction

of governmental work force).

The acknowledgement of the social role played by the Hungarian non-profit sector and the

governmental recognition of civil organizations were linked to changes in the wider world

political and economical environment as well as the development of the so- called global

civil society. Because of the new challenges (e.g. environmental and regional) and the

overshadowing of traditional political parties and the state, non-governmental

organizations (NGO’s) became important agents in the global and European Union

decision-making processes and led to their roles being more highly appreciated even in

15

Hungary. This can partly explain why Hungarian governments – not least because of

international expectations (e.g. from the EU) – in recent years have paid greater attention

to the mechanisms of interest-reconciliation as well as the importance of communication

with the social agents.

The development, or more exactly, the establishment of the Hungarian non-profit sector

was also affected by influential Hungarian experts in the field of NPO’s, but the

composition and working conditions of the Hungarian NPO’s have been mainly

influenced over the last 18 years by the activities of the prevailing governments aiming to

determine the legal and fiscal environment.

Foreign and Hungarian authors, without exception, agree that governmental policy can

greatly encourage the spread and the range of activities of NPO’s through the conscious

design of the sector’s environmental conditions. Hungarian practice, however, shows a

rather ambiguous picture of the connection between the two spheres. The policy of the

party-state before 1989, definitely hindered the establishment of civil and non-profit

organizations, and only after the change of regime did it become possible to freely form

independent associations and to develop the Hungarian non-profit sector. In the course of

events between 1990-93, the collapse of the previous structures and the appearance of new

ones were observed simultaneously. While some previous social organizations survived,

many were shut down because of the structural changes in the economy and ownership.

The more liberal laws of 1990 and 1991 provided very advantageous conditions for the

establishment of NPO’s, and this, in turn, was a decisive factor in the speedy development

of the sector. However, partially because of the abuse of tax allowances, but mostly

because of the deteriorating financial situation of the state, during the first three years of

the 90’s, the financial scope of the NPO’s was more and more strictly regulated, and with

the 1993 codification of the new non-profit organizational form, the government

transformed the sector’s organizational structure, as well.

By the middle of the 1990’s, the tax laws referring to NPO’s had been stabilized, which

made it possible for practices already established abroad, to be introduced in Hungary.

The government was determined to create more favourable conditions for the economies

and infrastructures of NPO’s by passing the ’1% Law’ in 1996, the law regulating the use

of property by social organizations in 1997 and 1999 and the Act of Public Benefit

Organizations in 1997. Although in 2000 the personal income tax allowances were further

limited, the first years of the new decade could be described as a quiet period with

professional discussions in the background and work continuing to prepare further NPO

16

laws. The first results of this appeared in 2003 when the Act of the National Civil Fund

was passed, which was then followed by the codification of the Voluntary Activity Law in

2005.

From the middle of the decade there was a shift of emphasis in governmental policy, and

laws changing the structure of the sector were created in rapid succession. The 2006 Act

of Business Associations ended the possibility of establishing public benefit companies,

while the modification of the Civil Code had the same effect on public law foundations.

The aim of this was to block any loopholes in economic regulations and to tighten up the

regulations concerning socially ineffective forms of organizations; this should in the long

run bring about greater transparency throughout the whole sector. However, the future

effects of governmental intervention should be definitely be estimated during the

preparatory stage of decision-making, as the effect of the planned measures can be greatly

reduced if the major public services are changed without social consensus. The lack of

consensus was mainly evident during the changes in the medical and educational sectors;

the confrontations between the government and the representative organizations of

employers and workers as well as the general increase of governmental authority in

various spheres suggest that the system of reconciling the interests between the civil sector

and the government is still not harmoniously resolved. To summarize the period of

government during 2006 and the years following: it has been characterized by more

intense state intervention, the huge transformation in the regulations concerning the

structure of the non-profit sector and the limited possibilities for reconciling interests.

In conclusion it can be said that at the beginning of almost every governmental cycle,

there has been a lack of clear and unambiguous governmental policy, which, in order to

provide the necessary social services, would encourage a more effective division of labour

between the two sectors. Over the past 18 years Hungarian civil and non-profit

organizations have been working against a background that could be typified by the

constant transformation in the governmental institutional system dealing with them, the

division of duties and authority between different institutional levels in the government

and the not insignificant influences of party politics. The system of reconciling interests

between civil and non-profit sectors and the government was characterized by ambiguity;

the political interest groups in the government tried to create institutional structures, which

would provide more advantageous conditions for organizations closer to them. The

constant transformation of the institutional system significantly reduced its effectiveness,

the consequences of which can be seen in the failure to ensure the smooth continuation of

17

services and the’weakness’ in the mechanisms of interest- reconciliation. In spite of the

fact that in the past decade the governmental subsidies given to the sector have greatly

increased, relatively few NPO’s have taken over duties previously carried out by state and

municipal institutions; furthermore, the effectiveness of governmental projects aiming to

develop cooperation between the two sectors is questionable.

As a result of closely examining the hypothesis, the assumption that the formation and

development of the non-profit sector in Hungary is significantly different from those of

developed countries, is justified. The reasons for this are: the different political and

economic background factors (e.g. in the period 1948-88: the restriction of civil voluntary

organizations, political influences on representative organizations of employers and

workers, the state monopolies of education, health and social services, then from 1989 the

change in the political system) and the transformational processes following the change of

regime (e.g. the change in the structure of economy and ownership, the under funded state

and municipal institutional systems). It could be shown, using the example of NPO’s

founded by state and municipal institutions and carrying out educational activities, that in

Hungary unfulfilled demands and the motivation to gain subsidies played a part in the

sector’s formation, but its development was mostly influenced by governmental policy

deciding the sector’s economic possibilities and composition of the organizations. The

latter can be proved not only by the changes in the legal environment (e.g. the originally

liberal but then increasingly strict regulation of tax allowances for NPO’s, governmental

measures first creating new organizational types of NPO’s and then closing them down,

and finally the implementation of non-profit laws), but also numerically based on the

growth of state funding directed to the non-profit sector. This latter point is paradoxical. In

spite of the fact that during the period surveyed government funding for the sector

significantly increased, the number of NPO’s taking over state and municipal

responsibilities remained noticeably low, and the resources of normative subsidy are

concentrated in a specific group of NPO’s (foundations and public benefit companies).

3. The hypothesis: limited cooperation= limited participation in providing public services

and limited employment

In Hungary, between the state and municipal authorities and NPO’s there is no partnership

or close cooperation in providing public services. This is at the same time the cause and

the consequence of the fact that the sector’s organizations have, on only a small scale,

18

taken over state and municipal services and neither is the sector’s influence on the labour

market significant.

In countries having a developed non-profit sector, growing state funding is usually

accompanied by the handing-over and the taking-over of state and municipal duties, and

consequently the number of employees in the non-profit sector has grown. In Hungary,

despite the significant increase in state funding, neither the mass handing-over of duties,

nor the significant growth in the number of employees is typical. Although the number of

employees in the sector has grown, only a small number of NPO’s, belonging to a clearly

differentiated group, have been able to raise their employee levels. Compared to other

branches of the national economy, NPO’s have not become decisive economic agents in

the Hungarian labour market.

The lack of cooperation between the state and municipal authorities and NPO’s is shown

by the fact that the proportion of NPO’s receiving normative subsidy – i.e. providing

public services – is very low within the sector, over the 10 years that have been examined

the proportion of NPO’s receiving per capita state subsidy was 1-4%, while the proportion

of those getting normative subsidy from municipal authorities was 0.5-2.5.

The analysis proved the hypothesis that there is only very limited cooperation between the

non-profit, state and municipal sectors in the provision of public services; the increase in

state subsidy within the sector was neither accompanied by the mass handing-over of

public duties, nor by a significant growth in the number of NPO employees.

4. The polarization of the NPO sector. The hypothesis: different resources = different

opportunities

Because of the growing concentration of the resources, the sector has become polarized

and the financial and human resources move to the non-civil types of organizations of the

sector, which in the long term might lead to a split in the sector.

Examination of the hypothesis justified the assumption that during the late 90’s in the non-

profit sector – because of new forms of NPO’s entering the sector – an increasing

concentration of the workforce and the economic resources was to be found in the non-

civil types of organizations within the sector, mostly within public benefit companies. In

the early 1990’s most employees worked for civil types of organizations, but the public

benefit companies, founded after 1994, rearranged the employment structure with great

speed. The number of their paid employees grew by 37 thousand over ten years; even now

19

they are the largest employers within the sector. In 2006 every second employee working

for NPO’s received their salary from public benefit companies.

Similar processes can also be observed in the sector’s incomes. Although representing

only 3% of all the organizations, public benefit companies’ share in the sector’s income is

constantly rising. In 1996 they received ’only’ 9% of the sector’s income and 5% of all

governmental subsidies, but by 2006 they already got 40% (!) of the sector’s income and

44% (!) of governmental subsidies. Although from economic and organizational

viewpoints, these organizations can be considered non-profit only in a very restricted way,

the economic growth of the whole sector and the increasing proportion of state subsidies

were mainly due to the subsidies given to these semi-governmental organizations over the

past 18 years. While within the sector the economic potential of the civil types of

organizations (foundations, associations) became smaller and smaller, through financing

public benefit companies, the state and municipal authorities often provided significant

funding to organizations under their control.

At present the question to be answered is how funding within the sector will be divided

after the termination of all public benefit companies and the establishment of non-profit

business organizations. It is only an assumption that because of the effect of legal

regulation, a stricter economic environment and economic restrictions in the future, there

will be less state and municipal funding, which paradoxically, in the long term, might even

result in a decrease in the concentration of economic resources.

5. Non-profit Acts and their effect. The hypothesis: increasing subsidiary resources, more

balanced conditions of operation and greater inequalities

After passing the non-profit acts, the organizations’ potential subsidiary resources

increased significantly and the more favourable operational conditions contributed to the

strengthening of the sector. However, in contrast to the lawmakers’ intentions, unequal

access to funds increased the sector’s inequalities, and the distance between the population

and NPO’s could be said to have modestly decreased.

Examining the hypothesis partially confirmed but also partially refuted the original

assumption. Statistics can reinforce the fact that due to the 1% Law and the National Civil

Fund Act, the subsidiary resources of the sector’s organizations have greatly increased, but

on the basis of time series data, it can be shown that NPO’s have very different

opportunities to acquire these funds, depending on their location, their activities and the

20

size of their other incomes. In the following paragraphs, I will show, how each act has

fulfilled its expectations.

The greatest merit of the 1% Law is that it increased the potential sources of income of

NPO’s, whilst at the same time incorporating the citizens into the redistributional process.

This system of pledging money encouraged a more direct relationship between citizens

and NPO’s, and also triggered intense competition between civil and non-profit

organizations. The legal system is still bureaucratic, and the control of the pledges is rather

insufficient. The still prevailing distrust in NPO’s by citizens has been partially confirmed

and partially refuted by the statistics. The number of organizations receiving pledges and

the amount of money pledged, have both increased over the period under examination, but

general lack of faith in NPO’s is shown by the fact that more than half of potential pledges

are not made. The other problem with the 1% Law is that it has not reduced the regional

inequalities of the sector, nor has it helped to stabilize the financial situation of

organizations on small incomes. According to the tendency based on time series data, a

growing number of pledges are given to relatively few, but high-incomed NPO’s.

By passing the so called Act of Public Benefit Companies, lawmakers provided NPO’s

with a variety of financial allowances, which in turn led to more favourable working

conditions. Data, examined by traditional and regression methods, confirmed the

assumption that citizens, companies and the business world are more likely to fund and

with greater sums organizations qualified as public benefit. These results are influenced by

the fact that without targeted surveys it is not possible to know exactly what other aspects

play a decisive role in this, besides being qualified as public benefit companies. Apart

from the positive effects of the Act of Public Benefit Companies, attention should be

drawn to the problem within the system, namely, that because of the inadequate resources

of the controlling tax authority and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the public benefit

control of NPO’s is random and often without legal consequences. The aim of the act, to

reduce state involvement and to increase the role of civil and non-profit organizations, has

only been partially successful. According to statistics that refer to state and municipal

normative subsidies, the number of NPO’s given such funding – that is those performing

either state, or municipal jobs – has grown since the passing of the act, but their actual

number is still rather low. Of the almost 60 thousand NPO’s working in 2006, altogether

only 1644 were given the state, while only 1023 received the municipal normative

subsidy, and this suggests that the cooperation between the sectors is small and restricted.

21

In regulating the distribution of those state resources to be paid through grant support, the

passing of the Act of the National Civil Fund was an important step forward compared to

the previous system of distribution, which did not rely on official procedures to control the

funding. The Act increased the resources available to NPO’s putting in grant supports,

however, it failed in many aspects to decrease the sector’s inequalities. After looking at

the results we can conclude that the decision makers of the National Civil Fund are more

likely to fund NPO’s located in towns and cities as well as those carrying out specific

activities (e.g. social, sport and leisure organizations and umbrella organizations); and

consequently the new system of funding was disadvantageous for smaller organizations.

The operational transparency of the NCF – and within it especially the decision makers’

personal interest and involvement in judging the projects given in for grant support – is

still insufficient; and the government has imposed restrictions upon the functioning of the

NCF several times through pay-off amount commitments.

The possible methods for the future examination of the sector

Last but not least, the analysis of the time series data also drew attention to the fact that

the functioning and effectiveness of the Hungarian non-.profit sector can only be

examined in a limited way using the present databases. Because of the incompleteness of

the ’input’ data sources, the ’output’ information is missing, which would be required to

judge the effectiveness of funding (e.g. the number of private individuals served by

NPO’s; the comparison between NPO’s and for-profit organizations carrying out the same

functions), thus the functioning of the different organizations of the sector cannot be

properly compared to other organizations doing similar activities, but in different

organizational forms (education, health care).

From the results of this dissertation concerning public benefit companies, civil and non-

civil organizations, it would be important that besides analyzing the whole sector, a

greater emphasis than before should be placed on the different types of organizations,

regional characteristics, the service providers and environmental factors influencing the

sector, with each being given a greater depth of analysis. In the researches concerning the

non-profit sector it is becoming increasingly necessary to carry out small-sample or panel-

type examinations besides cross-sectional surveys.

22

IV. References 1% - „Forintszavazatok” civil szervezetekre. [2000]. Tanulmányok. Nonprofit Kutatások

9. Budapest. Nonprofit Kutatócsoport.

Aberle, D. [1966]. The Peyote Religion Among the Navaho. Chicago. Aldine Press.

Adó-és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal [2005]. Tájékoztató a 2004. évi SZJA 1-1%-os

felajánlásokról. APEH.

Adó-és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal [2006]. Tájékoztató a Magyar Országgyűlés

Társadalmi szervezetek Bizottsága részére a személyi jövedelemadó 1-1 %-áról tett

rendelkező nyilatkozatok feldolgozásának 2005. rendelkező évi tapasztalatairól.

APEH.

Adó-és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal [2007]. Tájékoztató a Magyar Országgyűlés Emberi

Jogi, Kisebbségi, Civil- és Vallásügyi Bizottsága részére a személyi jövedelemadó

1+1 %-áról tett rendelkező nyilatkozatok feldolgozásának 2006. rendelkező évi

tapasztalatairól. APEH.

Adó-és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal [2007]. Tájékoztató a 2006. évi szja-bevallások szja

1+1%-ának feldolgozásáról. APEH.

Állami Számvevőszék [2000]. 0002 sz. Jelentés a Nemzeti Gyermek és Ifjúsági

Közalapítvány működésének pénzügyi-gazdasági ellenőrzéséről. ÁSz.

Állami Számvevőszék [2001]. 0136 sz. Jelentés az Új Kézfogás Közalapítvány

gazdálkodásának ellenőrzéséről. ÁSz.

Állami Számvevőszék [2002]. 0228 sz. Jelentés a közalapítványoknak és az

alapítványoknak az 1998-2001. évek között juttatott nem normatív központi

költségvetési támogatás felhasználásának ellenőrzéséről. ÁSz.

Állami Számvevőszék [2002]. sz. 0237 Jelentés a társadalmi szervezeteknek és

köztestületeknek juttatott költségvetési támogatások ellenőrzéséről. ÁSz.

Állami Számvevőszék [2003]. 0315 sz. Jelentés a Magyar Televízió Közalapítvány és az

MTV Rt. működésének ellenőrzéséről. ÁSz.

Állami Számvevőszék [2003]. 0304 sz. Jelentés a Magyar Mozgókép Közalapítvány

gazdálkodásának ellenőrzéséről. ÁSz.

Állami Számvevőszék [2003]. 0323 sz. Jelentés a Magyar Alkotóművészeti Közalapítvány

gazdálkodásának ellenőrzéséről. ÁSz.

Állami Számvevőszék [2003]. 0335 sz. Jelentés a Magyar Rádió Közalapítvány és a

Magyar Rádió Részvénytársaság működésének ellenőrzéséről. ÁSz.

23

Állami Számvevőszék [2003]. A nonprofit szektor működése és ellenőrzése. 2003.

december. ÁSZ. Önkormányzati és Területi Ellenőrzési Igazgatóság. Fejlesztési és

Módszertani Intézet.

Állami Számvevőszék [2004]. 0402 sz. Jelentés a Magyarországi Zsidó Örökség

Közalapítvány gazdálkodásának ellenőrzéséről. ÁSz.

Állami Számvevőszék [2004]. 0408 sz. Jelentés a Hungária Televízió Közalapítvány és a

Duna Televízió Rt. működésének ellenőrzéséről. ÁSz.

Állami Számvevőszék [2004]. 0466 sz. Jelentés az Illyés Közalapítvány gazdálkodásának

ellenőrzéséről. ÁSz.

Állami Számvevőszék [2005]. 0467 sz. Jelentés az államháztartáson kívüli állami

feladatellátás rendszerének ellenőrzéséről. ÁSz.

Állami Számvevőszék [2006]. 0635 sz. Jelentés a Nemzeti Civil Alapprogramból civil

szervezeteknek juttatott költségvetési támogatások ellenőrzéséről. ÁSz.

Alexander, J. C. [1987]. The Social Requisites of Altruism and Voluntarism. Some Notes

on What Makes a Sector Independent. Sociological and Interest-Group Barriers to

Reform. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Alexander, J. C. [1998]. Uncivil Hierarchies. In: Jeffrey C. Alexander (ed.) Real Civil

Societies. Dilemmas of Institutionalisation. London. Sage.

Andorka R. [1997]. Bevezetés a szociológiába. Osiris kiadó.

Anheier, H. K. – Glasius, M. – Kaldor, M. (szerk.) [2004]. Globális Civil Társadalom I.

Budapest. Typotex kiadó.

Anheier, H. K. [2002]. The Third Sector in Europe: Five Theses. Civil Society Working

Paper No. 12. Center for Civil Society. London. London School of Economics.

Arató A. [1990]. Forradalom, civil társadalom és demokrácia Kelet-Európában. Mozgó

Világ 1990/8.

Arató A. [1992]. Civil társadalom Lengyelországban és Magyarországon.

Politikatudományi Szemle 2.

Arrow, K. [1963]. Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care. American

Economic Review 53.

Az egyesületek száma törvényhatóságonként 1932 végén. Az egyesületek taglétszáma

1932 végén. Az egyesületek pénzügyi eredményei 1932 végén [1935]. Magyar

Statisztikai Évkönyv 1934. Budapest. Magyar Királyi Központi Statisztikai

Hivatal.

24

Az Európai Közösség Bizottságának Közleménye az önkéntes szervezetek és alapítványok

szerepének erősítéséről Európában [1998]. Budapest. Európa Ház.

Badelt, Ch. [2002]. Handbuch der Nonprofit Organisationen. Strukturen und Management.

Stuttgart. Schäffer-Pöschel Verlag.

Bagyó J. [1929]. Törvényhozásunk emberbaráti működése az elmúlt évszázadban. In: A

Magyar filantrópia könyve. Szerk.: Béry László. Légrády Testvérek.

Balázs M. [1991]. Az alapítványi élet indulása Magyarországon. Esély 1.

Bartal A. M. [1999]. Nonprofit alapismeretek kézikönyve. Ligatura kiadó.

Bartal A. M. [2005]. Nonprofit elméletek, modellek és trendek. Századvég kiadó.

Beck, B. M. [1970]. The Voluntary Social Welfare Agency. A Reassessment. Social

Service Review 44.

Beck, B. M. [1971]. Governmental Contracts with Non-profit Social Welfare

Corporations. In: Smith, B. L. R. – Hague, D. C. (eds.). The Dilemma of

Accountability in Modern Government. New York. St. Martin's Press.

Ben-Ner, A. [1986]. Non-Profit Organizations: Why Do They Exist in Market Economies?

In: Rose-Ackerman, S (ed.). The Economics of Nonprofit Institutions: Studies in

Structure and Policy. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Ben-Ner, A. – Gui, B. [1993]. The Nonprofit Sector in the Mixed Economy. Michigan.

University of Michigan Press.

Ben-Ner, A. – Van Hoomissen, T. [1989]. The Relative Size of the Nonprofit Sector in the

Mixed Economy: Theory and Estimation. Minneapolis. University of Minneapolis.

Ben-Ner, A. – Van Hoomissen, T. [1992]. An Empirical Investigation of the Joint

Determination of the Size of the For-profit, Nonprofit and Government Sectors.

Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 63.

Bíró E. [2002]. Márkus Eszter (szerk.) Nonprofit szektor analízis. Civil szervezetek jogi

környezete Magyarországon Budapest. Emla Egyesület.

Bíró E. [2005]. A KCR – dimenzió. A közfeladat-ellátásban való civil részvétel jogi

akadályai. NOSZA tanulmányok. Márkus Eszter (szerk.). Budapest. Emla

Egyesület.

Bíró L. – Gerencsér B. [2000]. A civil szervezetek véleménye az 1%-os törvényről és

annak végrehajtásáról. In: 1% - „Forintszavazatok” civil szervezetekre.

Tanulmányok. Nonprofit kutatások 9. Budapest. Nonprofit Kutatócsoport.

Bocz János [1992]. Egyesületi statisztika Magyarországon. Statisztikai Szemle. 70.

Évfolyam 10. sz.

25

Bocz J. – Gyulavári A. – Kuti É.– Locherné Kelédi I. – Sebestény I. – Vajda Á. [1994].

Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 1992. Budapest. Központi Statisztikai

Hivatal.

Bocz J. – Gyulavári A. – Kuti É. – Locherné Kelédi I. – Mészáros G. – Sebestény I.

[1995]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 1993. Budapest. Központi

Statisztikai Hivatal.

Bocz J. – Kuti É. – Locherné Kelédi I. – Mészáros G. – Sebestény I. [1996]. Nonprofit

szervezetek Magyarországon, 1994. Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Bocz J. – Kuti É. – Locherné Kelédi I. – Mészáros G. – Sebestény I. [1997]. Nonprofit

szervezetek Magyarországon, 1995. Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Bocz J. – Emri I. – Kuti É. – Mészáros G. – Sebestény I. [1998]. Nonprofit szervezetek

Magyarországon, 1996. Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Bocz J. [1997]. A nonprofit szervezetek szerepe a szociális szolgáltatások biztosításában.

Az államtalanítás dilemmái: munkaerőpiaci kényszerek és választások. In: Landau

E. – Szalai J. – Vince P. (szerk.). Budapest. Aktív Társadalom Alapítvány.

Bocz et al. [1998]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 1996. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Bocz J. [2001]. Egészségügyi nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon.

Társadalomstatisztikai Füzetek 32. sz. Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Bocz et al. [2001]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 1999. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Bocz et al. [2002]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 2000. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Bocz et al. [2003]. A nonprofit szektor főbb statisztikai jellemzői, 2001.

Társadalomstatisztikai Füzetek 37. szám. Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Bocz J. [2004]. Szociális nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon 1994-ben és 2002-ben.

Társadalomstatisztikai Füzetek 41. sz. Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Bocz et al. [2004]. A nonprofit szektor főbb statisztikai jellemzői, 2002. Budapest.

Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Bocz et al. [2005]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 2003. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Bocz J. – Géring Zs. – Kmetty Z. – Szabó K. – Kreitl P. [2006]. Nonprofit szervezetek

Magyarországon, 2004. Társadalomstatisztikai Közlemények. Budapest. Központi

Statisztikai Hivatal.

26

Bossányi Katalin [1997]. Egy százalék. Mozgó világ 1. szám.

Bourdieu, P. [1997]. Gazdasági tőke, kulturális tőke, társadalmi tőke. In: Angelusz Róbert

(szerk.): A társadalmi rétegződés komponensei. Budapest. Új Mandátum

Könyvkiadó. Eredeti mű: Pierre Bourdieu: „Ökonomische Kapital, kulturelles

Kapital, soziales Kapital”. Sociale Welt, 1983. Sonderband 2.

Bullain N. [2005]. Átfogó jogi reformkoncepció: Lépések egy értékalapú civil jövőkép

felé. Civil Szemle 1.

Clarkson, K. [1972]. Some Implications of Property Rights in Hospital Management.

Journal of Law and Economics 15.

Coleman, J. S. [1988]. Social Capital in The Creation of Human Capital. American

Journal of Sociology, 94.

Coleman, J. S. [1990]. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge and London. Belknap

Press of Harvard University Press.

Coleman, J. S. [1998]. A társadalmi tőke az emberi tőke termelésében. In: Lengyel Gy. –

Szántó Z. (szerk.) Tőkefajták: A társadalmi és kulturális erőforrások szociológiája.

Budapest. Aula Kiadó.

Cooley, C H. [1969]. Sociological Theory and Social Research. New York. Wiley.

Czakó Á. – Harsányi L. – Kuti É. – Vajda Á. [1995]. Lakossági adományok és önkéntes

munka. Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal - Nonprofit Kutatócsoport.

Czike K. – Bartal A. M. [2005]. Önkéntesek és nonprofit szervezetek – az önkéntes

tevékenységet végzők motivációi és szervezeti típusok az önkéntesek

foglalkoztatásában. Budapest. Civitalis Egyesület.

Czike K. – Kuti É. [2006]. Önkéntesség, jótékonyság, társadalmi integráció. Nonprofit

Kutatóközpont és Önkéntes Központ Alapítvány.

Dahrendorf, R [1997]. After 1989: Morals, Revolution and Civil Society. New York. St.

Martin's Press.

Davies, J. C. [1962]. Towards a Theory of Revolution. American Sociological Review, 27.

DiMaggio, P. J. – Anheier, H. K. [1990]. The Sociology of Nonprofit Organizations and

Sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 1990.

Dobrovits S. [1935]. Magyarország egyesületeinek statisztikája. Magyar Statisztikai

Szemle. 1935. évi 1. szám.

Douglas, J. [1987]. Political Theories of Nonprofit Organization. In: Powell, W. W. (ed.).

The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven. Yale University Press.

Durkheim, É. [2003]. Az öngyilkosság. Budapest. Osiris kiadó.

27

Egyesületek Magyarországon, 1989 [1991]. Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Etzioni, A. – Halevy, E. [1983]. Bureaucracy and Democracy: A Political Dilemma.

London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

European Parliament [1993]. Report of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and

the Media on Foundation and Europe. DOC EN/RR/241/241238.

Eyermann, R. – Jamison A. [1991]. Social Movements. Cambridge. Polity Press.

Evers, A. [1988]. Shifts in the Welfare Mix: Introducing a New Approach for the Study of

Transformation in Welfare and Social Policy. In. Evers, A. – Winterberger, H.

(eds.): Shifts in the Welfare Mix. Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare

Training and Research. Magyarul: Eltolódások a jólétmixben. In: Társadalmi

rétegződés (szerk.: Andorka, R., Hradil, S., Peschar, J.) Budapest. Aula Kiadó,

1995.

Evers, A. [1995]. Part of the Welfare Mix: The Third Sector as a Intermediate Area.

Voluntas, vol.6. No. 2.

Evers, A. – Olk, T. [1996]. Wohlfartspluralismus – Analytische und normativ-politische

Dimensionen eines Leitbegrifts. In. Evers, A. – Olk, T.: Wohlfartspluralismus:

Vom Wohlfartsstaat zur Wohlfartsgesellschaft. Opladen: Westdeutscher.

Fama, E. – Jensen, M. [1983]. Separation of Ownership and Control. Journal of Law and

Economics 26.

Fama, E. – Jensen, M. [1983]. Agency Problems and Residual Claims. Journal of Law and

Economics 26.

Fitch, L.C. [1974]. Increasing the Role of the Private Sector in Providing Public Services.

In: Hawley, W. D. – Rogers, D. (eds.). Improving the Quality of Urban

Management. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Flora, P. et al. [1982]. State, Economy and Society in Western Europe 1815-1975.

Frankfurt-London. Campus-Macmillan.

Fülöp S. [2002]. A civil-nonprofit szektorba tartozó szervezetfajták. In: Bíró E. Márkus

Eszter (szerk). Nonprofit szektor analízis. A civil szervezetek jogi környezete

Magyarországon. Budapest. EMLA Egyesület.

Fulcher, J [1991]. A New Stage of the Development of Capitalist Society? Sociology

Review, 1.

Fukuyama, F. [1997]. Bizalom: A társadalmi erények és a jólét megteremtése (ford.

Somogyi Pál László). Budapest. Európa Könyvkiadó.

28

Gerencsér B. [1999]. Az 1%-os törvény végrehajtásával és megítélésével kapcsolatos

vélemények a civil szervezetek körében. Budapest. Nonprofit Információs és

Oktató Központ Alapítvány.

Giddens, A. [1984]. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge. Polity Press.

Giddens, A. [1993]. Sociology. Cambridge. Polity Press.

Giddens, A. [1998]. The Third Way. The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge.

Polity Press.

Glózer R. [1999]. A civil társadalom funkcióváltozása Magyarországon 1989-1999

(konferencia-előadás, internetes publikáció a doktori program hivatalos honlapján:

http://www.communicatio.hu/cikkek/glozerrita/civilfunkcio.htm).

Glózer R. [2006]. A civil társadalomtól a nonprofit szektorig. Diskurzus a civil

társdalomról Magyarországon a rendszerváltozás utáni évtizedekben. Ph.D.

értekezés. Pécs. Pécsi Tudományegyetem Bölcsészettudományi Kar.

Grabher, G. – Stark, D. [1996]. A szervezett sokféleség – evolúciólemélet, hálózatelemzés

és a posztszocialista átalakulás. Közgazdasági Szemle. XLIII. évf. 1996.

szeptember.

Gusfield, J. R. [1955]. Social Structure and Moral Reform: A Study of the Woman’s

Christian Temperance Union. American Journal of Sociology, 61.

Habermas, J. [1993]. A társadalmi nyilvánosság szerkezetváltozása. Budapest. Századvég

– Gondolat Kiadó.

Halmai G. [1990]. Az egyesülés szabadsága. Az egyesülési jog története. Budapest.

Atlantisz Medvetánc.

Hansmann, H. B. [1980]. The Role of the Nonprofit Enterprise. Yale Law Journal 89/5.

Hansmann, H. B. [1981]. Nonprofit Enterprise in the Performing Arts. Bell Journal of

Economics 12.

Hansmann, H. B. [1981]. Reforming Nonprofit Corporation Law. University of

Pennsylvania Law Review 129.

Hansmann, H. B. [1985]. The Effect of Tax Exemption and Other Factors on Competition

Between Nonprofit and For-Profit Enterprise. Yale University, Program on Non-

Profit Organizations Working Paper No. 65.

Hansmann, H. B. [1987]. Economics Theories of Nonprofit Organization. In: Powell, W.

W. (ed.). The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven. Yale

University Press.

Hargrove, E. [1975]. The Missing Link. Washington, D.C. The Urban Institute Press.

29

Harsányi L. [1992]. A nonprofit szektor szabályozásának vitás kérdései. In: Kuti É.

(szerk.) A nonprofit szektor Magyarországon. Budapest. Nonprofit Kutatócsoport.

Harsányi L. [1997]. Az állam és a nonprofit szektor. INFO-Társadalomtudomány No. 42.

Harsányi L. – Széman Zs. [1999]. Halak és hálók. Kapcsolatok a helyi szociálpolitikában.

Budapest. Nonprofit Kutatócsoport.

Hartz, L. [1948]. Economical Policy and Democratic Thought in Pennsylvania, 1776-

1860. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.

Hegyesi G. [1991]. Integrációs modellek és nonprofit szektor. Esély 1.

Held, D. [1987]. Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Holtmann, A. G. [1983]. A Theory of Non-Profit Firms. Economica 50.

James, E. [1982]. The Private Provision of Public Services: A Comparison of Holland and

Sweden. Yale University, Program on Non-Profit Organizations Working Paper

No. 60.

James, E. [1983]. How Nonprofits Grow: A Model. Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management 2.

James, E. [1986]. The Public/Private Division of Responsibility for Education: An

International Comparison. Economics of Education Review 6.

James, E. [1986]. Differences in the Private Educational System in Modern and

Developing Countries. Mimeo.

James, E. [1987]. The Nonprofit Sector in Comparative Perspective. In. Powell, W. W

(ed.) The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven. Yale University

Press.

James, E. (ed.] [1989]. Nonprofit Organizations in International Perspective: Studies in

Comparative Culture and Policy. New York. Oxford University Press.

James, E. – Benjamin, G. [1987]. Public versus Private Education: The Japanese

Experiment. London. MacMillan.

James, E. – Rose-Ackerman, S. [1986]. The Nonprofit Enterprise in Market Economies.

London. Harwood Academic Publishers.

Jones, G. R. [1995]. Organizational Theory: Text and Cases. Massachusetts. Addison-

Wesley.

Keane, J [1998]. Civil Society. Old Images, New Visions. Polity Press in association with

Blackwell Publishers Limited, Oxford. Magyarul megjelent: A civil társadalom.

Régi képzetek, új látomások. Budapest, 2004. Typotex kiadó.

Kecskés L. [1988]. Az alapítványi jog fejlődése. Magyar Jog 2.

30

Kerrine, Th. M. – Neuhaus, R. J. [1979]. Mediating Structures: A Paradigm for

Democratic Pluralism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science 446.

Kopp M. – Skrabski Á. – Szedmák S. [1998]. A szociális kohézió jelentősége a

magyarországi morbiditás és mortalitás alakulásában. In. Magyarország az

ezredfordulón, Népesség, orvos, társadalom (Szerk: Glatz Ferenc) MTA. SOTE

Magatartástudományi Intézet, Önkéntes Kölcsönös Pénztárakat Támogató

Alapítvány.

Könyves T. K. ifj. [1929]. Budapest községi népjólét- és kórházügyének története 1686-tól

napjainkig. In: A Magyar filantrópia könyve. Szerk.: Béry László. Légrády

Testvérek.

Központi Statisztikai Hivatal [2007]. Társadalmi jellemzők. Budapest.

Kramer, R. [1987]. Voluntary Agencies and Personal Social Services. In: Powell, W. W.

(ed.). The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven. Yale University

Press.

Kramer, R. [2000]. A Third Sector in the Third Millennium? Voluntas, Volume 11.

Number 1, March, 2000. Springer Netherlands.

Krashinsky, M. [1984]. Transaction Costs and a Theory of the Nonprofit Organization.

Yale University, Program on Non-Profit Organizations Working Paper No. 84.

Krashinsky, M. [1997]. Stakeholder Theories of the Non-profit Sector. Voluntas 8/2.

Kuti É. [1991]. A nonprofit elméletek és a nonprofit gyakorlat lehetőségei

Magyarországon. Közgazdasági Szemle 1.

Kuti É. [1996]. A nonprofit szervezetek szerepe a kilencvenes évek magyar társadalmában

és gazdaságában. Közgazdasági Szemle 10.

Kuti É. [1998]. Hívjuk talán nonprofitnak... A jótékonyság, a civil kezdeményezés és az

állami keretekből kiszoruló jóléti szolgáltatások szektorrá szerveződése. Budapest.

Nonprofit Kutatócsoport.

Kuti É. [2008]. A magyarországi civil társadalom és a nonprofit szektor helyzete, uniós

kapcsolatai, fejlődési irányai. Szakértői anyag a Gazdasági és Szociális Tanács

részére.

Kuti É. – Marschall M. [1991]. A nonprofit szektor fogalma. Egy definíciós vita, és ami

mögötte van. Esély 1.

Kuti É. – Marschall M. (szerk.) [1991]. A harmadik szektor. Tanulmányok. Budapest.

Nonprofit Kutatócsoport.

31

Kuti É. – Vajda Á. [2000]. Állampolgári „szavazás” közpénzekről és civil szervezetekről.

In: 1% - „Forintszavazatok” civil szervezetekre. Tanulmányok. Nonprofit

Kutatások 9. Budapest. Nonprofit Kutatócsoport.

Kuti É. [2004]. Szándékok, szereplők eredmények. A Nemzeti Civil Alapprogram első

pályázati fordulójának tapasztalatai az adatok tükrében. Budapest. ICsSzEM és

NCA.

Kuti É. – Sebestény A. [2006]. A Nemzeti Civil Alapprogram első három pályázati

fordulója az empirikus adatok fényében. Budapest. ICsSzEM és PC–Büró Bt.

Lee, A. J. – Weisbrod, B. A. [1977]. Collective Goods and the Voluntary Sector: The Case

of the Hospital Industry. In: Weisbrod, B. A. (ed.). The Voluntary Nonprofit

Sector. Lexington. Lexington Books.

Lévai K. – Széman Zs. [1993]. Társadalmi trigonometria. Budapest. Scientia Humana.

Magyarország különböző egyletei [1862]. In: (Szerk.) Hunfalvy János. Statisztikai

Közlemények. A hazai állapotok ismeretének előmozdítására. Pest. MTA

Statisztikai Bizottsága. 4. kötet I. füzet.

Magyarország egyletei és társulatai 1878-ban [1880]. Hivatalos Statisztikai Közlemények.

(Szerk.) Dr. Varga Gyula. Budapest. Országos Magyar Királyi Statisztikai Hivatal.

XLII.

Miró Kiss Ida [2002]. Globális? Civil? Társadalom? - Avagy minek nevezzelek?

http://informaciostarsadalom.wordpress.com/globalis-civil-tarsadalom-avagy-

minek-nevezzelek/

Miszlivetz, F. [2000]. A civil társadalom nyomvonalai az új európai térben. Kritika.

XXIX. évfolyam 12. szám.

Messinger, S. L. [1955]. Organizational Transformation: A Case Study of Declining

Social Movement. American Sociological Review, 20.

Molnár M. [1992]. A civil társadalom: „előtte” és „utána”. Világosság 11. szám.

Nagy E. [1999]. A civil társadalomtól a polgári társadalomig. In: Csefkó F. – Horváth Cs.

(szerk.): Magyar és európai civil társadalom. Pécs. MTA RKK Dunántúli

Tudományos Intézete – Pécs-Baranyai Értelmiségi Egyesület.

Nagy M. [2005]. 2% Dél-Szlovákiában. Somorja – Dunaszerdahely. Lilium Aurum

Könyvkiadó.

Neave, G. [1983]. The Nonstate Sector in the Education Provision of Member States of

the European Community. Report to the Education Services of the Comission of

the European Community, Brussels.

32

Nelson, R. R. – Krashinsky, M. [1973]. Public Control and Organization of Day Care for

Young Children. Public Policy 22/1.

Newhouse, J. [1970]. Toward a Theory of Nonprofit Institutions: An Economic Model of

a Hospital. American Economic Review 60/2.

Némedi Dénes [2001]. Utószó. In: Émile Durkheim. A társadalmi munkamegosztásról.

Budapest. Osiris kiadó.

Nisbet, R. [1962]. Community and Power. New York. Oxford University Press.

Offe, C. [1985]. Disorganized Capitalism. Cambridge. MIT Press.

Osváth T. L. [2002]. A tercier szektor területi tagozódása és új szereplői. Eötvös Loránd

Tudományegyetem Természettudományi Kar Regionális Földrajzi Tanszék.

Osváth T. L. [2005]. A civil szervezetek térségi együttműködései Magyarországon.

Útmutató és kézikönyv a civil szervezetek térségi együttműködésének elveiről,

módszereiről, eljárási rendjéről. Országos Civil Érdekképviseletért Egyesület.

Pajkossy G. [1993]. Egyesületek a reformkori Magyarországon. História XV/2.

Papházi T. [1997]. Egyesületek, társadalom, egészségügy. Budapest. Nonprofit

Kutatócsoport.

Perrow, C. [1961]. Organizational Prestige: Some Functions and Dysfunctions. American

Journal of Sociology, 66.

Philos Alapítvány és Századvég Alapítvány [2007]. A Nemzeti Civil Alapprogram Civil

Szolgáltató, Fejlesztő és Információs Kollégiuma által 2004-ben és 2005-ben

finanszírozott kutatási pályáztok monitoring vizsgálata.

Powell, W. W. (ed.) [1987]. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven.

Yale University Press.

Putnam, R. D. [1995]. Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social

Capital in America. Political Science & Politics 28/4.

Raschke, J [1985]. Neue Soziale Bewegungen. Campus. In: Bihari M. – Pokol B.

Politológia. Budapest. ELTE és Tankönyvkiadó.

Rein, M. – Rainwater, L. [1986]. Introduction. In.: Rein, M. – Rainwater, L. (eds.): Public-

Private Interplay in Social Protection. New York. Armonk.

Reisz L. [1988]. Egyletek a dualizmuskori Magyarországon. Statisztikai Szemle 10.

Revita Alapítvány [2007]. A civil szervezetek támogatását célzó szolgáltató rendszerek

működése és hatékonysága. A Szociális és Munkaügyi Minisztérium megbízásából

készült tanulmány.

33

Rose, R. [1985]. The State’s Contribution to the Welfare Mix. Studies in Public Policy.

No. 140. University of Strathclyde.

Rose-Ackerman, S. [1985]. Nonprofit Firms: Are Government Grants Desirable? Mimeo.

Rose-Ackerman, S. [1986]. The Economics of Nonprofit Institutions: Studies in Structure

and Policy. New York. Oxford University Press.

Salamon, L. M. [1981]. Rethinking Public Management: Third-Party Government and the

Changing Forms of Government Action. Public Policy 29/3.

Salamon, L. M. [1983]. Nonprofit Organizations and the Rise of Third-Party Government:

The Scope, Character and Consequences of Governmental Support of Nonprofit

Organizations. Paper presented at the Independent Sector Spring Research Forum,

New York, May.

Salamon, L. M. [1984]. Nonprofit Organizations: The Lost Opportunity. In: Palmer, J. –

Sawhill, I. (eds.). The Reagan Record. Cambridge. Ballinger.

Salamon, L. M. [1984]. Nonprofits: The Results are Coming In. Foundation News 25/ 4.

Salamon, L. M. [1987]. Of Market Failure, Voluntary Failure, and Third-Party

Government: Toward a Theory of Government – Nonprofit Relations in the

Modern Welfare State. Journal of Voluntary Action Research.

Salamon, L. M. [1987]. Partners in Public Service: The Scope and Theory of Government-

Nonprofit Relations. In: Powell, W. W. (ed.). The Nonprofit Sector: A Research

Handbook. New Haven. Yale University Press.

Salamon, L. M. [1993]. The Global Associational Revolution: The Rise of the Third

Sector on the World Scene. Occasional Paper No. 15, Baltimore. The Johns

Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies.

Salamon, L. M. – Abramson, A. J. [1982]. The Federal Budget and the Non-Profit Sector.

Washington D.C. Urban Institute Press.

Salamon, L. M. – Anheier, H. K. [1992]. In Search of the Nonprofit Sector I: The

Question of Definitions. The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project

Working Papers No. 2. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy

Studies.

Salamon, L. M. – Anheier, H. K. [1993]. A harmadik út – Másodlagos anyagi támogatás,

külső vezetés és társadalmi szolgáltatások biztosítása az Egyesült Államokban és

Németországban. OECD - jelentés.

Salamon, L. M. – Anheier, H. K. [1995]. Szektor születik. Budapest. Nonprofit

Kutatócsoport

34

Salamon, L. M. – Anheier, H. K. [1996]. Social Origins of Civil Society: Explaining the

Nonprofit Sector Cross-Nationally. Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins

Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, No. 22, Baltimore. The Johns Hopkins

University.

Salamon, L. M. – Anheier, H. K. – Sokolowski, W. and Associates [1996]. The Emerging

Sector. A Statistical Supplement. Baltimore. The Johns Hopkins Institute for

Policy Studies.

Salamon, L. M. – Anheier, H. K. [1998]. Social Origins of Civil Society: Explaining the

Nonprofit Sector Cross-Nationally. Voluntas 9/3.

Salamon, L. M. – Anheier, H. K. [1998]. The Emerging Sector Revisited. A Summary.

Baltimore. The Johns Hopkins University.

Salamon, L. M. – Musselwhite, J. C. Jr. [1983]. Voluntary Organizations and the Crises of

the Welfare State. Washington D.C. Urban Institute Press.

Salamon, L. M. – Anheier, H. K. – List, R. – Toepler, S. – Sokolowski, W. and Associates

[1999]. Global Civil Society. Dimension of the Nonprofit Sector. Baltimore. The

Johns Hopkins University, Center for Civil Society Studies.

Salamon, L. M. – Sokolowski, W. – List, R. [2003]. Global Civil Society An Overview.

Baltimore. The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Civil Society Studies –

Institute for Policy Studies.

Schuler D. [1935]. Az alapítványszerű juttatásokra és alapítványokra vonatkozó törvények

és jogszabályok. Budapest. Budapest Székesfőváros Házinyomdája.

Sebestény I. [1998]. Az önkormányzatok és a nonprofit szervezetek kapcsolata, 1996.

Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Seeley, J. et al. [1957]. Community Chest. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Seibel, W. [1991]. A kormány és a nonprofit szektor közötti kapcsolat nemzetközi

összehasonlításban: Franciaország és az NSZK. Esély 1.

Seligman, A. B. [1992]. Érvek a „civil társadalom” ellen. Szociológiai Szemle 1992/1.

Seligman, A. B. [1997]. A civil társadalom eszméje Budapest. Kávé kiadó.

Smelser, N. J. [1963]. Theory of Collective Behaviour. New York. Free Press.

Smith, B. H. [1975]. Religion and Social Change: Classical Theories and New

Formulations in the Context of Recent Development. Latin America Research

Review 10/2. Summer.

Somogyi Z. [1941]. A középkori Magyarország szegényügye. Budapest. Stephaneum.

35

Staats, E. [1975]. New Problems of Accountability for Federal Programs. In: Smith, B. L.

R. (ed.). The New Political Economy: The Public Use of the Private Sector.

London. The MacMillan Press, Ltd.

Steinberg, R. – Gray, B. H. [1993]. The Role of Nonprofit Enterprise in 1992: Hansmann

Revisited. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quaterly, 22.

Szabó I. [2000]. A települési önkormányzatok és a civil szervezetek kapcsolatrendszere.

In: Csegény P. – Kákai L. (szerk.): Köztes helyzet? A civil szervezetek és az

önkormányzatok kapcsolatában. Miniszterelnöki Hivatal.

Szabó M. [1993]. Alternatív mozgalmak Magyarországon. Budapest. Gondolat.

Szabó M. [1994]. A társadalmi mozgalmak szerepe a demokratikus politikai rendszer

intézményesedésének folyamatában Magyarországon. Szociológiai Szemle 3.

Szabó M. [2004]. Globalizáció, regionalizmus, civil társadalom. Századvég.

Szalai J. [1997]. Az egészségügyi alapítványokról. INFO-Társadalomtudomány No. 42.

Széman Zs. [1996]. Az önkormányzatok és a civil szféra kapcsolata. In: Lévai K. –

Straussman, J. (szerk.). Innovatív önkormányzatok. Budapest. Helyi Társadalom

Kutató Csoport.

Tarrow, S. [1995]. The Europanisation of Conflict: Reflections from a Social Movements

Perspective. West European Politics Vol. 18. No. 2.

Tilly, C. [1978]. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, Mass. Addison–Wesley.

Tocqueville, A. [1983]. A demokrácia Amerikában. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó. A fordítás

alapjául szolgáló eredeti mű: Alexis de Tocqueville: De la démocratie en

Américque. Paris, Michel Levy Fréres 1874.

Touraine, A. [1977]. The Self-production of Society. Chicago. University of Chicago

Press.

Touraine, A. [1981]. The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements.

Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Törnquist-Chesnier, M. [2004]. NGOs and International Law. Journal of Human Right,

Vol 3. No. 2.

Török M. [1995]. Alapfokú kézikönyv civil szervezetek számára. Budapest. NIOK.

Tullock, G. [1966]. Information Without Profit. In: Tullock, G.(ed.). Papers on Non-

Market Decision Making. Charlottesville. Tomas Jefferson Center for Political

Economy, University of Virginia.

Utasi Ágnes [2002]. A bizalom hálója. Mikrotársadalmi kapcsolatok, szolidaritás.

Budapest. Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó.

36

Vajda Á. [1995]. Alapítványok, egyesületek és önkormányzati intézmények. Európa

Fórum 2.

Vajda Á. [1997]. A nonprofit szervezetek szerepe a társadalomépítésben. INFO-

Társadalomtudomány 42.

Vámosi Nagy Sz. [1998]. 1 százalék - közvetlen demokrácia? In: Kurtán S. – Sándor P. –

Vass L. (szerk.). Magyarország politikai évkönyve, 1998. Budapest. Demokrácia

Kutatások Magyar Központja Alapítvány.

Vargha Gy. [1880]. Magyarország egyletei és társulatai 1878-ban. Hivatalos Statisztikai

Közlemények. Budapest. Országos Magyar Királyi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Weber, M. [1987]. Gazdaság és társadalom 1. Szociológiai kategóriatan. Budapest.

Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó.

Weisbrod, B. A. [1964]. Collective-Consumption Services of Individual-Consumption

Goods. Quarterly Journal of Economics 78.

Weisbrod, B. A. [1975]. Toward a Theory of the Voluntary Non-Profit Sector in a Three-

Sector Economy. In: Rose-Ackermann, S. (ed.). The Economics of Nonprofit

Institutions: Studies in Structure an Policy. Oxford University Press. New York.

Weisbrod, B. A. [1977]. The Voluntary Nonprofit Sector: An Economic Analysis.

Lexington. Lexington Books.

Weisbrod, B. A. [1988]. The Nonprofit Economy. Cambridge. Harvard University Press.

Vercseg I. [2004]. Közösségfejlesztő leckék kezdőknek és haladóknak. Parola-füzetek. I-

III. rész. Budapest. Közösségfejlesztők Egyesülete.

Woolcock, M. [2000]. The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social and Economic

Outcomes. Human Resources Development Canada and the OECD, International

Symposium. The Contribution of Humanand Social Capital to Sustained Economic

Growth and Well Being, March 19-21, 2000. Quebec City. Canada.

Zald, M. N. – Ash, R. [1966]. Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay, and

Change. Social forces, 44.

Zauner, A. [2002]. Über solidaritat zu Wissen. Ein systemtheoretischer Zugang zu

Nonprofit Organisationen, In: Handbuch der Nonprofit Organisation. Strukturen

und Management (Hrsg: Christoph Badelt) Schaffer-Poeschel Verlag.

Young, D. R. [1981]. Entrepreneurship and the Behavior of Nonprofit Organizations:

Elements of a Theory. In: M. White (ed.) Nonprofit Firms in a Three-Sector

Economy. Washington. Urban Institute.

37

London School of Economics: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/ United Nations http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/criteria.asp/ European Union http://ec.europa.eu/governance/white_paper/index_en.htm) http://www.ces.eu.int/pages/en/acs/SCO/SCO_accueil_en.htm/ Open Society Institute http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/lawguide_20040215 The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies http://www.jhu.edu/~ccss/publications/books/index.html#overview http://www.jhu.edu/~ccss/publications/cnpwork/ http://www.jhu.edu/ccss/unhandbook/handbookdraft.html World Bank http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/CSO/0,,contentMDK:20101499~menuPK:244752~pagePK:220503~piPK:220476~theSitePK:228717,00.html

38

V. Publications

Publications published in Hungarian Chapters Bocz János [1997]. A nonprofit szervezetek szerepe a szociális szolgáltatások

biztosításában. Az államtalanítás dilemmái: munkaerőpiaci kényszerek és

választások. In: Landau E. – Szalai J. – Vince P. (szerk.) Aktív Társadalom

Alapítvány. Budapest. 604–660. old.

Bocz et al. [1998]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon. In: Kurtán S. – Sándor P. –

Vass L (szerk.). Magyarország évtizedkönyve. A rendszerváltás (1988-1998). II.

kötet. Táblázatok. Demokrácia Kutatások Magyar Központja Alapítvány.

Budapest. 673–691. old.

Journal Articles Bocz János [1992]. Egyesületi statisztika Magyarországon. Statisztikai Szemle. 70.

Évfolyam 10. sz. 840–852. old.

Bocz János [1995]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon. Statisztikai Szemle. 73.

Évfolyam 6. sz. 465–486. old.

Bocz et al. [1995]. Gyakorlati, módszertani és stratégiai kérdések a nonprofit szektor

statisztikai megfigyelésében. Gazdaság és Statisztika. 46. Évfolyam 3. sz. 51–63.

old.

Bocz János [1997]. Önszerveződésből civil társadalom. Társadalmi Szemle. 52. Évfolyam

12. sz. 68–79. old.

Bocz János [1997]. A szociális nonprofit szervezetek helyzete Magyarországon. Info-

Társadalomtudomány. 42. sz. 51–58. old.

Bocz János [1999]. A nonprofit szervezetek statisztikája. Statisztikai Szemle. 77.

Évfolyam 8. sz. 639–647. old.

Bocz et al. [1999]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon 1. Comitatus 1999. 12. szám.

44–50. old.

Bocz et al. [2000]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon 2. Comitatus 2000. 1-2. szám.

60–65. old.

Bocz János – Kmetty Zoltán [2008]. Egészségügyi nonprofit szervezetek. Civil Szemle 5.

Évfolyam 1-2. szám. 39–60. old.

39

Conference Papers Bocz János [1996]. A szociális nonprofit szervezetek szerepe Magyarországon. Előadás

„Az állami újraelosztás szerepe a szegénység felszámolásában” című

konferencián. 1996. november 22–23., Budapest.

Bocz János [2002]. Társadalmi integráció?! De ez mit jelent?! A Magyar Szociológiai

Társaság Konferenciája. Előadás „A mai magyar társadalom és szociális

integráció” című konferencián. 2002. december 12–13., Szeged.

Working Papers Bocz et al. [1994]. Társadalmi szervezetek 1991-ben Magyarországon. Központi

Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [1994]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 1992. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [1994]. Alapítványok és egyesületek. A nonprofit szektor statisztikája.

Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [1995]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 1993. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [1996]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 1994. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz János [1997]. Szociális nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon.

Társadalomstatisztikai Füzetek 19. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal

Népességtudományi Kutató Intézet Kutatási Jelentése. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [1997]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 1995. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [1998]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 1996. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [1999]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 1997. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [2000]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 1998. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz János [2001]. Egészségügyi nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon.

Társadalomstatisztikai Füzetek 32. sz. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

40

41

Bocz et al. [2001]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 1999. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [2002]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 2000. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [2003]. A nonprofit szektor főbb statisztikai jellemzői, 2001.

Társadalomstatisztikai Füzetek 37. szám. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [2003]. Társadalmi Helyzetkép, 2002. In: Bukodi Erzsébet (szerk.). Központi

Statisztikai Hivatal, Budapest. 165–179. old.

Bocz János [2004]. Szociális nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon 1994-ben és 2002-

ben. Társadalomstatisztikai Füzetek 41. sz. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal.

Budapest.

Bocz et al. [2004]. A nonprofit szektor főbb statisztikai jellemzői, 2002. Központi

Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [2004]. Társadalmi Helyzetkép, 2003. In: Bukodi Erzsébet (szerk.). Központi

Statisztikai Hivatal, Budapest. 189–205. old.

Bocz János – Nagy Renáta – Sebestény István [2005]. Nonprofit szervezetek

Magyarországon, 2003. Társadalomstatisztikai Közlemények. Központi

Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [2006]. Nonprofit szervezetek Magyarországon, 2004. Társadalomstatisztikai

Közlemények. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. Budapest.

Bocz et al. [2007]. Társadalmi Helyzetkép, 2005. In: Harcsa István (szerk.). Központi

Statisztikai Hivatal, Budapest. 161–174. old.

Publications published in English

Conference Papers Bocz János [1994]. The Changing Roles of Voluntary Social Service Organizations in

Hungary. Előadás a „Inaugural Conference of the International Society for Third-

Sector Research” című konferencián. 1994. július 7–10., Pécs.

Bocz János [2000]. The Participation of the Political Elite in Nonprofit Organisations in

Hungary. Előadás a „Fourth International Conference of the International Society

for Third-Sector Research” című konferencián. 2000. július 3–8., Dublin

(Írország).